Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave Hack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. 1ne 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slave Hack
Just another non-notable online game played in your browser. This particular one was started in June of this year. It's biggest claim to fame is that it was featured on the front page of Digg ... so what? Each day up to two dozen sites are featured on Digg, does that mean we should write articles about all of them? Cyde Weys 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This nomination is obviously made in violation of WP:POINT in retaliation against me (the editor who started and basically wrote the article) as I am currently in a dispute with Cyde and I told him about 20 minutes ago that I'm considering reporting his actions at WP:AN/I. syphonbyte (t|c) 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-read "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", as you don't seem to understand it. Filing an AFD for an article on a subject I consider non-notable isn't "disrupting Wikipedia", it's a routine course of business. Do you actually have anything to say about why this article should be kept, or does your defense consist solely of attacking my character and motives? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, I have not attacked your character, and never have, despite you attacking mine on a number of occassions. (See your closing comment here for an example.) WP:POINT is not precisely what I should've linked to, admittedly, rather my point is that you are listing this article on AfD to antagonize me because I have threatened to report your actions. If this isn't the case, then I'm sorry. At any rate, this is notable irreguardless of your nomination because it recieved over 1,000 diggs in a matter of days, which is exceptional. I'd have listed more detailed information about the extraordinary rate of signups for the game, however that is original research. The article passes WP:WEB, which is a horribly broken guideline anyhow. (See my essay on the subject.) syphonbyte (t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you visit Digg that often? Every day more than a dozen different articles receive over one thousand Diggs. Again, Digg.com isn't so inherently notable that anything it touches automatically becomes notable too. --Cyde Weys 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, I have not attacked your character, and never have, despite you attacking mine on a number of occassions. (See your closing comment here for an example.) WP:POINT is not precisely what I should've linked to, admittedly, rather my point is that you are listing this article on AfD to antagonize me because I have threatened to report your actions. If this isn't the case, then I'm sorry. At any rate, this is notable irreguardless of your nomination because it recieved over 1,000 diggs in a matter of days, which is exceptional. I'd have listed more detailed information about the extraordinary rate of signups for the game, however that is original research. The article passes WP:WEB, which is a horribly broken guideline anyhow. (See my essay on the subject.) syphonbyte (t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-read "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", as you don't seem to understand it. Filing an AFD for an article on a subject I consider non-notable isn't "disrupting Wikipedia", it's a routine course of business. Do you actually have anything to say about why this article should be kept, or does your defense consist solely of attacking my character and motives? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no indication that it meets any of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE or even WP:WEB; WP:NOT an index of all web games. Sandstein 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Digg article establishes notability. WP:WEB is not policy, the same goes for WP:SOFTWARE, the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia. syphonbyte (t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The "Digg article" is not an article but appears to be some sort of blog or forum post. WP:WEB is a guideline and authoritative as such. As with WP:SOFTWARE, it boils down to demanding reliable published sources for any claim of notability, which are not in evidence in this case. Sandstein 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you'll read my nomination statement you'll see that I say up to two dozen different links are featured on Digg every day. Merely being featured on Digg doesn't automatically make something so notable that it gets its own article. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not an encyclopedia of everything mentioned on a popular internet site. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I must agree with these statements about the Digg article, and it was my intent to list this at AfD if I couldn't find any other articles to establish its notability, especially due to the severe decline in the popularity of the game. It appears to have been a one hit wonder, and certainly doesn't merit a place in Wikipedia. However, the nomination was obviously made in bad faith, and being a big fan of process, I'd rather this nomination be discarded so that I can nominate it under my own name. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Digg article establishes notability. WP:WEB is not policy, the same goes for WP:SOFTWARE, the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia. syphonbyte (t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Non notable. Fails WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:NOT.--Peephole 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In what way does this violate WP:V? syphonbyte (t|c) 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its only "sources" are the game's website itself and a Digg mention ... Digg mentions, by the way, are very small capsule summaries of no more than 300 characters and are written by Joe Q. Internet. There are no third-party journal or newspaper mentions that discuss this game. Everything in the article comes directly from the game itself, which counts as original research. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In what way does this violate WP:V? syphonbyte (t|c) 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Per Cyde and Sandstein. This article's references fail WP:RS. SynergeticMaggot 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find WP:RS. I suggest a Speedy Let Me Relist, because it's rather obvious that User:Cyde still made the nomination in bad faith, and I'd rather kill the article myself. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:You have to prove its in bad faith, which you havent. This isnt going to be relisted, its going to be deleted per the consensus its achieving. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I thought I'd proven it rather clearly; I'm involved in a dispute with Cyde and told him that I'm going to report his actions (such as blocking me in a manner and for reasons wholly against blocking policy), and not 20 minutes later he listed this article, which I created, for deletion. If that's not a bad faith nomination, I don't know what is. Sure, the article should be deleted, however the inital nomination shouldn't be a bad faith one, in my opinion, as it could easily open the door for a DRV if a rabid Slave Hack player were to find this deletion discussion and notify the entire game community about it. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV. Sandstein 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, it doesn't matter that much anyhow; the point is that it ought to be deleted. I'd rather not bring my dispute with Cyde to this AfD. syphonbyte (t|c) 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV. Sandstein 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I thought I'd proven it rather clearly; I'm involved in a dispute with Cyde and told him that I'm going to report his actions (such as blocking me in a manner and for reasons wholly against blocking policy), and not 20 minutes later he listed this article, which I created, for deletion. If that's not a bad faith nomination, I don't know what is. Sure, the article should be deleted, however the inital nomination shouldn't be a bad faith one, in my opinion, as it could easily open the door for a DRV if a rabid Slave Hack player were to find this deletion discussion and notify the entire game community about it. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:You have to prove its in bad faith, which you havent. This isnt going to be relisted, its going to be deleted per the consensus its achieving. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find WP:RS. I suggest a Speedy Let Me Relist, because it's rather obvious that User:Cyde still made the nomination in bad faith, and I'd rather kill the article myself. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete while there's something entertainingly meta about playing a computer game that simulates hacking people's computers, it's still non-notable webcruft. Opabinia regalis 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Peta 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Alexa ranking is 25,316 - that's fairly high. Kingdom of Loathing (which I would argue is definitely notable) is Alexa rank 8,667. I think this may not be notable yet, but could need an article if it gets more popular and persists over time.--Brianyoumans 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is very high; higher than I'd have expected. I'll save the content of the article, if the game gets popular again and some articles are published on it, I'll do some work to the article and create it.
- Keep Because an admin should know better then violate WP:POINT when in a conflict with a user. If another user, unrelated to the admin in conflict proposes it, I will reconsider then. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein and per nom. Even if this nomination was done in bad faith - and I see zero evidence for Syphonbite's assertion that it was - that doesn't change the fact that bringing it to AfD is the right call. wikipediatrix 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — nn Martinp23 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing more I can add, as everyone has already stated exactly why I would delete this. Bad-Faith or not, *I* would have nominated this article for and AfD even if speedy kept. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all -- Deville (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia SHOULD be the definitive source for information on internet pop phenomena. A Digg user or Slave Hack player would like to know more about the game... Why not provide them with that additional information? --AStanhope 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOT. What you think Wikipedia should be is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a source for information on internet pop phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Rather than trying to make Wikipedia into something that it isn't, why not go somewhere else that already is what you're looking for. For example, I'm sure there's a Wikia that specializes in "internet pop phenomena" .. hell, you could probably start a Wikia for Internet-based games, and who knows, it might even be very popular (I gather there's a fair number of people playing these games). But Wikipedia just isn't the appropriate place, sorry. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cyde is correct; to put it in a less hostile tone, the scope of Wikipedia is too small to include Slave Hack in it at the moment. A Wiki with a scope that included Slave Hack would be a great place for the article, though. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep info baby, johny 5 needs more info. --Tess Tickle 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please come up with something more coherent? This doesn't make sense. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree, I can't make heads or tails of that statement. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you two chaps working together? --Tess Tickle 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not exactly, in fact we are involved in a bit of a dispute. I actually wrote this article, and Cyde nominated it for AfD. I agree with the reason for the AfD, though, so you could say that we're working together to make the encyclopedia better. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Well, to answer the question, my statement purports to portray my own viewpoint that an enclopeadia should be, well, encyclopeadiac. By stating that johny 5 needs more info, I'm expressing my belief that the encylopeadia would be better served by including the article, and improving it. Happy to help. --Tess Tickle 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not exactly, in fact we are involved in a bit of a dispute. I actually wrote this article, and Cyde nominated it for AfD. I agree with the reason for the AfD, though, so you could say that we're working together to make the encyclopedia better. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, web game obscurata. NTK 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, usually I'm deletionist, but... keep. ugen64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you actually have any reasoning besides doing something out of character for yourself? This is a discussion, not a vote, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than your Wikipedia philosophy, which is irrelevant regarding the notability of this subject. --Cyde Weys 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
